Is blogging good for journalism? Quite a question, I know. However, as a journalism student preparing to enter post-collegiate life, this might be a question asked at job interviews or in the workplace.
Blogging can be good for journalism. However, as with newspapers and other established forms of media, there must exist a balance between credibility, accuracy and intelligence for a blog to have real merit.
For example, this blog post was some of the first media coverage given to seemingly pro-segragationist remarks by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. Lott was later forced to resign after the mainstream media took the blogger’s lead on the story.
Of course there are other examples of bloggers being the first people to write on a certain topic. For instance, the controversy surrounding Dan Rather and the false documents he used on “60 Minutes” was initially started by bloggers.
In this Washington Post story, the newspaper tells how, as blogs about Rather got more hits, CBS was forced to act and Rather left the network.
When they get stories right, bloggers have just as much credibility as the mainstream media and, because many bloggers operate independently, they don’t have to worry as much about corporate interests, which can sometimes hinder larger news organizations.
Blogs are good for journalism because they force the older, more established media outlets to adapt and meet the demands of the customers, which fans of “survival of the fittest” must enjoy to no end.